The Dark Path

[SteveA]

The key word is integration over immigration and to discuss it is indeed a dark path of ponder that has side roads of most disturbing nature in history. Who is at fault? ... Government permissiveness to allow the problems of a culture to immigrate with the person. ... time and time again I am seeing it in varied cultures all over the world not just the big ones. idk .. integration must be the key ... if not ... there is no rule of law in the future but evil ... on a dark road. .. kind regards graham

Well I do agree that communities tend to get overrun, but the way I see it is that we should be tolerant to diversity. If some group of people want to have a community based upon some common views between them, they should be free to do so (as long as they aren't holding people captive).

But the track record of much of modern government is to intrude upon privacy and make everything public or have public officials or representatives decide private issues.

I don't encourage racism, but truly if some community wanted only people of some specific racial traits and it was their own land and they weren't kicking people out (like voting and deciding that such and such people must leave), then I don't see a reason why they shouldn't be able to do this.

But the problem is that people begin allowing exceptions and say that, yes, you can raise your children the way you want ... ah, but you can't spank them ... oh and you need to feed them "healthy" (and then a government list comes along listing what people must feed their children).

I'd enjoy it if more people stepped back and simply asked what the purpose of government was in the first place? I don't think people had intended it to be a replacement for past Kings and democracy itself is practically warfare over who will be the losing side (oftentimes on issues that were never even a problem before).

If we all voted on what color looks best on a house, that should be seen as simply demographics and opinions, and not something that needs be enforced.

I think something close to ideal is to get rid of all legislation and have no laws at all and just have a jury system with the single decision that if two or more people can't get along, then someone has to leave (no additional specific punishment and they can take their things with them ... basically an eviction notice - exile and social isolation are the more common and natural ways that people deal with private issues).

Such a system doesn't deny someone putting on a badge and claiming they're a police officer (even if there were no "official" police) and giving out speeding tickets. If someone feels wronged by this to the extent they're willing to risk going to court, then the police officer may change his/her mind about sticking with the ticket. On the other hand, if the "officer" is generally recognized by the community as performing a valuable service, then it's likely the ticketed driver would be the one evicted.

If someone said, that couldn't possibly work because, for example, there's no law against a sniper shooting up a school year ... ah, but there's similarly no law against shooting that sniper either (and if the sniper's relatives took you to court over it, I have a feeling they wouldn't have much sympathy for the dead sniper).

I'm just giving an example of how I think things could be better. Basically, the way I see it is that people should be free to do what they want and as long as someone isn't causing major problems for someone else and society at large, shouldn't get involved until 1) someone's asking for help and 2) there's some legitimate harm or imminent danger involved (though I encourage caution on anything "preemptive" - that's oftentimes just an excuse to get involved and toss weight around).

I admit there are gray areas (for example, pollution is something that doesn't always stay in ones own backyard), but if we ever got to day where the problems were just subtle grey issues, I'd love it. That's already a "win" in my book.

(I do agree that there can be problems with immigration, though I tend to think that most the mainstream/government recommendations are backwards and what more politicians need to do is admit that many government policies have aggrevated things and begin to actually undo a lot of the excessive intrusions into affairs that are inherently private or should be performed by charities etc.)

Oh well, there I go again on politics ... the real solution is to simply walk away (turn off the TV, ignore the mandates, stop paying their upkeep etc. and let it fall apart) and if they chase after, well then you have a right to defend yourself.

[G_burnett]

some came out of tribal culture a long time ago ... no need to bring it back or indulge ones self in it any more then as a curiosity ... living it is the problem for the whole ... IMHO .. and letting it go by? hmmm well i have kids and grandkids now and that is not an option to walk away less they step out of the house into a hole ... someone else dug ... with a headstone as an added feature ... etc etc etc .. hmmm just a ponder kind regards graham

[labelwench]

CBC News is running a piece on the Mexican Drug Cartels this evening, so I ran a quick search and stumbled across the following article in relation to the issue of illegal drug traffic and human traffic on the U.S./Mexico border. There have been numerous incidents regarding injury and death of tourists to Mexico over the last year also. Given our discussion has wandered into the territory of immigration and the associated negatives, this article plugs in to the present conversation. That there is so much discussion of the problem, to my mind indicates that that there is substance to the concern, in light of the evidence in my own backyard, personally observed and encountered. Not familiar with the source I have cited, but it does give food for thought, if naught else. Other sources have verified that the drug industry has been getting more sophisticated, and more violent.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/156912

Regards,

LW

[labelwench]

This on a different note.....

ICBC, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, recently ran a somewhat bold advertisement, aimed at a high-risk, hard to reach audience, youthful drivers, and the subject of drinking and driving. As many members of this forum are parents and grandparents, they will be sharing the growing pains and rites of passage of their children, and so I post this reminder of another dark path.

What boggles my mind, is that this ad was deemed offensive, and yet moments before, the drug cartel news featured video footage of persons who had been hanged, shot, and dismembered, one image of a person actually picking up a severed head. The images were rather brief, but very distinct, and not taken from a distance or blurred in any manner.

Who is it that has the final call on what we are 'allowed' to watch, anyway?

The following link has the story, and in the sidebar to the right, there is the 33 second ad, as well as the actual news report aired.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-col...-campaign.html

What a society we live in, where human death is acceptable, and yet even an oblique suggestion of a sexual organ causes a knee-jerk reaction.

Selective censorship comes to mind........

[SteveA]

Yes, I think that's another good example of an area where government has created conflict and manufactured "criminals". We had prohibition of alcohol in the past in the U.S. and the same thing happened. There became smuggling, organized "crime" and things went underground and people rioted etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition

Similar problems have arisen with many drugs in the U.S. (not to mention the restrictions placed on remedies and medicines that were previously easily available) now and most of the prison population here is regarding drug use.

What's ironic is that it appears the government just wants to monopolize the industry. For example, gambling was illegal here in California, yet the state runs a lottery (for which the payoff is so low, it would be illegal in Vegas!) and gives permits for casinos.

Now they want to legalize, not decriminalize marajuana, which means they want to run the business. It's basically the mafia that won.

I don't want to encourage drug use either, but government should not be trying to protect people from their own (possible) mistakes but instead just concentrating on actual harms that may occur between people and I don't think someone owes society a responsibility to be a model citizen, they simply need to respect others freedoms and vested interests and things fall together from there.

If the laws were more focused on this, it shouldn't matter whether someone commits some harm to someone else on or off the influence of drugs, it's that harm that's the problem and the laws should be focused on (though I admit it does seem like some additional consequences for irresponsibility could be justified, so it's not entirely cut and dried).

Just like children, yes, someone can try to keep them indoors and protect them from a chill, but in the long run it doesn't do them a service. If parents want to do this or someone wants to do it themself, that's fine, but society shouldn't be setting these standards on how people should take care of their private affairs beyond that.

[labelwench]

The Fear Of Wasted Time - Courtyard Hounds

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgNM2...eature=related

[G_burnett]

little candy for the morning to chew over ? hmm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UERQh...ext=1&index=41

[labelwench]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh0_L...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J72hq...eature=related

[G_burnett]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh0_L...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J72hq...eature=related

This is like dfnout lmao ... we have to meet some day ... this is a sign anna lol

[G_burnett]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhhtS...eature=related

The Fear Of Wasted Time - Courtyard Hounds

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgNM2...eature=related